Materialism is the best explanation for reality

Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:

You say there is no freedom in the universe.

Click to expand...

No silly. You are just reading something into my comments that obviously isn't there. But back up your damn arguments. Cite where I say that there is no freedom in the universe. I only stated that inanimate objects don't have "freedom". Provide evidence that this is incorrect or it will be obvious that you are flat out wrong.

leibowde84 said:

No silly. You are just reading something into my comments that obviously isn't there. But back up your damn arguments. Cite where I say that there is no freedom in the universe. I only stated that inanimate objects don't have "freedom". Provide evidence that this is incorrect or it will be obvious that you are flat out wrong.

Click to expand...

...you say there is no freedom in the universe

Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:

...you say there is no freedom in the universe

Click to expand...

Lol. Then cite where I said this. Should be easy, right? Or do you "not have the time"?

Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:

...you say there is no freedom in the universe

Click to expand...

You refuse to recognize the difference between the states of being animate and inanimate, correct? That seems to be your hang up on logic here.

leibowde84 said:

You refuse to recognize the difference between the states of being animate and inanimate, correct? That seems to be your hang up on logic here.

Click to expand...

That you make the distinction shows you deny freedom is real. The electrochemistry in the brain cannot turn out several ways if the electrochemistry in the weather cannot turn out several ways. Your concept of freedom is that it is forced, your science corrupted as ideology, because you don't have a separate category for opinion distinct from fact.

Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:

That you make the distinction shows you deny freedom is real. The electrochemistry in the brain cannot turn out several ways if the electrochemistry in the weather cannot turn out several ways. Your concept of freedom is that it is forced, your science corrupted as ideology, because you don't have a separate category for opinion distinct from fact.

Click to expand...

This is the part of your argument that goes against reason. Provide some evidence that your first statement is true. If you dont, you are nothing but a quack, spewing unsupported speculation.

Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:

That you make the distinction shows you deny freedom is real. The electrochemistry in the brain cannot turn out several ways if the electrochemistry in the weather cannot turn out several ways. Your concept of freedom is that it is forced, your science corrupted as ideology, because you don't have a separate category for opinion distinct from fact.

Click to expand...

Provide some evidence for this crazy statement damn it!!

"The electrochemistry in the brain cannot turn out several ways if the electrochemistry in the weather cannot turn out several ways."

Jaiket said:

But we know that materialism is the proposition that everything is material. The only thing materialism can say is that life is made of matter, it's constituents are matter and it's precursors are matter.

Try this article: Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Click to expand...

The first line says that physicalism is sometimes known as materialism. Maybe im not using the correct position but materialism as ive defined and explained it is a pretty logical definition. People seem to be arguing about the semantics of materialism and whether im correctly using it but i dont think that matters to much. So your first definition is completely flaccid. You have to include that everything is material and EXPLAINABLE by the laws in which material interacts. Just matter by itself without physics laws wouldnt do anything--in fact mass itself couldnt exist without physical laws.

I think everything in the universe can be explained by material and the fundamental laws they follow. Seems like a pretty good definition of materialism--using the logic of materialism you can think of ways in which every observable phenomena could be explained by material, so therefore no supernatural explanation is not necessary. The reason why this is a good default assumption that is likely is because so far so much has been explained by the laws of physics and material, and in fact nothing has been demonstrated to require a supernatural explanation. You may claim this as a false dilemma but either everything is explained by material and the laws of physics or it requires a supernatural explanation, that is an explanation that does not follow logic or physical laws. You'd be hard pressed to take a middle ground.

Materialism can say much more than you're suggesting though.

LegionOnomaMoi said:

That's what language does. Explaining is much harder, particularly when one's explanation has to be consistent with observations, logic, and predictions based upon their combination. Simply positing "creationism" as an explanation that doesn't explain, isn't consistent with observations, and isn't entailed by any physical theory doesn't support creationism as an explanation of anything whatsoever.

Click to expand...

So wait im curious. Do you believe that there are things which are explained by the supernatural?

Because either you think everything follows some physical law or you have to think that our universe is a blend of things which do and dont follow physical laws. Its not a false dilemma because there's no logical in between except to say agnosticism, which i would admit would be a fair position.

serp777 said:

So wait im curious. Do you believe that there are things which are explained by the supernatural?

Because either you think everything follows some physical law or you have to think that our universe is a blend of things which do and dont follow physical laws. Its not a false dilemma because there's no logical in between except to say agnosticism, which i would admit would be a fair position.

Click to expand...

I think he said he was more find of physicalism, but even found that somewhat wanting.

If you believe he was arguing a point of view, I think you are mistaken. From my perspective he was just shooting holes in your argument...And well, sorry to say but you no longer have a battle ship.

LegionOnomaMoi said:

Materialism isn't a theory.


I'm not using the lexeme "popular" in the colloquial sense, but as a categorization. Popular literature is that which is non-technical (i.e., not intended for our colleagues). For example, literature in modern (quantum & relativistic quantum) physics assumes that one is familiar with vector spaces, functionals, etc., but not necessarily measure theory (at least not to the extent that mathematicians or those who deal with rigorous probability theory are). Technical literature in biblical studies or classics generally assumes knowledge not only of Latin and Ancient Greek but German and French or Italian.


You don't know my position.


All scientists rely on citations from other scientists. It's the foundation of all academic literature, the sciences included. Any technical paper, monograph, etc., will rely on a large number of quotations or simply citations from the literature.


Proof is for mathematics. We don't deal with proofs in science except in terms of mathematical proofs.


That's a theorem. Materialism is an axiom (or a set of axioms).


The Higgs was "discovered" in 2012, and the physics literature still reflects the fact that we don't actually know what we found because we lack both the language and the knowledge to connect "physics" with the "physical" (see the particle physics group's latest publications, the relevant APS papers, and the simplest source I know of: my blog: The God Particle Discovered? Maybe Not).


You can't. Because apart from the various different solutions that result in different elementary particles, there's the ontological issues. There's a fairly non-technical volume Ontological Aspects of Quantum Field Theory you might check out.



Conflicting results that at best are uninterpretable from a materialist perspective.


This is simply to say that the brain is a materialist cause of phenomena from the social sciences because it is assumed they are. It explains nothing and assumes everything relevant. Even grandmother neurons were vastly superior to such assertions.


None exist (currently).



I was a researcher and teacher at Harvard until my overly ambitious doctoral dissertation (demonstrating the inadequacy of any and all possible quantum theories of consciousness) required a change in graduate programs (basically, when you spend more time with mathematicians and physicists than those in your own lab, let alone your own department, you end up losing most of the possible support from your would-be "doctoral defense" committee, who don't appreciate your not producing or helping to produce research in the field and can't evaluate your work because they lack the requisite knowledge; so you go to MIT). However, my background is irrelevant. It's the literature that matters (actually, it's the truth that does but as access to it is mediated through things like scientific knowledge and familiarity with work in fields from philosophy to physics the literature is as good as we often get).

Click to expand...

Materialism isn't a theory.

Click to expand...

A theory is just generally defined as this:
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Definition of an explanation
a statement or account that makes something clear, or a reason or justification given for an action or belief.

So materialism explains that material and the laws they follow generate all observable phenomena and it explains that because of that, supernatural explanations are unnecessary. So its a justification for the lack of necessity of a supernatural explanation. From the theory of materialism you predict that life can emerge spontaneously and that consciousness could be simulated on a system which could simulate models of atoms and chemical reactions somewhat precisely. It justifies that these phenomena are likely explained by material interactions when science requires more rigorous evidence to make that determination.

Most importantly theories are testable and falsifiable. If you created a theory of everything which was verified empirically, and from that you demonstrate still that consciousness cannot be explained, then you can show materialism to be false. Or if you show that a theory of everything is not possible then that would disprove materialism. And, if you generate a theory of everything and from that show that all observable phenomena can be explained from that, thus materialism is confirmed. Or perhaps there are other avenues to show the supernatural. If you can show any supernatural phenomena then you have disproved materialism. So there are possible avenues of proving and disproving materialism.

Also when I say proof, and you bring up a semantics argument that proof only exists in math, which is technically true. Its just a short hand for saying its 99.9999999...% true. Not worth discussing further. I just dont want to have to specific this every single time and it isnt necessary

Anyways what is your alternative? That material and the laws of physics are not sufficient for the universe and that you need the supernatural to explain it? How could it be in between these?

You don't know my position.

Click to expand...

You took it completely out of context. I was talking about a specific point not your general position. I think you just skimmed that part.

You can't. Because apart from the various different solutions that result in different elementary particles, there's the ontological issues. There's a fairly non-technical volumeOntological Aspects of Quantum Field Theory you might check out.

Click to expand...

First of all the higgs boson was just an example, take any boson. Again, my argument doesnt require a sophisticated understanding of the intricacies of the fields which make up subatomic particles. Like i said materialism isnt defeated because we discovered a new constituent of sub atomic particles. The definition simply changes to that which is composed of subatomic particles, and thus by extension the fields which compose the particles. Matter is just a definition, and it changes as science improves of course. It follows particular mathematical rules which is the only thing of concern. If it didnt follow the rules of mathematics or anything or logic, and you could show that, then it would be a point against materialism.

This is simply to say that the brain is a materialist cause of phenomena from the social sciences because it is assumed they are. It explains nothing and assumes everything relevant. Even grandmother neurons were vastly superior to such assertions.

Click to expand...

Its an assertion based on certain evidence and reason. The fact that, for example, you could use magnetic fields to disable the empathy center of the brain which would thus alter social interactions. ALso certain drugs would do the same thing. There is ample evidence for material causing substantial changes in social interactions, including certain genetic components as well like the seratonin transporter gene implicated in bullying. It explains that a supernatural, non materialist explanation is uneccesary.

Also in regards to your background, I was merely curious since you seem well educated and I just wanted to know how you amassed a good amount of knowledge from a variety of fields, when usually scientists today focus on very particular aspects of their field. However, I would say that it was excessively ambitious because you said it yourself that QM was incomplete, and even more you asserted it was wrong; furterhmore you lacked a thorough understanding of waht consciousness is is also not understand. So your doctorate was way to ambitious like you say because it was based on unsound axioms including the incompleteness of QM and a lack of understanding the parameters of consciousness. You simply did not have sufficient knowledge to make such assertions; you are identically overly ambitious in this thread to say the brain and consciousness cannot be simulated. I dont claim certainty that it can be you said matter of factly that it couldnt.

Curious George said:

I think he said he was more find of physicalism, but even found that somewhat wanting.

If you believe he was arguing a point of view, I think you are mistaken. From my perspective he was just shooting holes in your argument...And well, sorry to say but you no longer have a battle ship.

Click to expand...

Well you're entitled to your opinion and analogies, and you may even be right. Clearly you are a fanboy of his though. That may even be justified because he is intelligent and well educated. But id rather be on a sinking battleship personally than no battleship at all. I did say materialism was the best explanation for reality, not that it was the perfect explanation. I already admitted there are flaws including the number of speculations and assumptions it requires compares to science. But its the best that currently exists since otherwise you need to invoke a much more unlikely supernatural explanation. And furthermore physicalism and amterialism seem very similar IMO. Materialism has a much greater scope than science.

Id also like to know what exactly these giant holes are. So far most of the arguments have been against definitions. I already defeated the argument about simulated consciousness being impossible which his primary argument was. And i defeated his secondary argument about particles not really existing, and therefore neither does matter. I addressed both these points which were the primary complaints, so perhaps youd like to explain?

Shad said:

You are conflating empiricism as a model of science with a metaphysical view point of materialism. One is part of a methodology and model which works in science, the other is not. Materialism is the inductive based metaphysical view based on empiricism.

Click to expand...

No, im utilizing empiricism in materialism to reduce the number of assumptions that it inherently needs to make. I fail to see an issue with that. Materialism should depend on empirical data for a good amount of its arguments and assertions. Now of course its not as rigorous as science. Its a weaker version of science but with more scope and more assertions.

serp777 said:

Well you're entitled to your opinion and analogies, and you may even be right. Clearly you are a fanboy of his though. That may even be justified because he is intelligent and well educated. But id rather be on a sinking battleship personally than no battleship at all. I did say materialism was the best explanation for reality, not that it was the perfect explanation. I already admitted there are flaws including the number of speculations and assumptions it requires compares to science. But its the best that currently exists since otherwise you need to invoke a much more unlikely supernatural explanation. And furthermore physicalism and amterialism seem very similar IMO. Materialism has a much greater scope than science.

Id also like to know what exactly these giant holes are. So far most of the arguments have been against definitions. I already defeated the argument about simulated consciousness being impossible which his primary argument was. And i defeated his secondary argument about particles not really existing, and therefore neither does matter. I addressed both these points which were the primary complaints, so perhaps youd like to explain?

Click to expand...

Lol, I am a fan boy of virtually every poster on rf, including you. I love watching people's writing styles and watching them change over time. Legion and a couple others (who do not post here anymore) are capable and versed in propositional logic (as well as other logics) I do rely on them to help me there sometimes. But I love watching their battleships get sunk just as well. I think you have done a wonderful job in trying to defend.

But these holes: non-locality, qm understanding of particles, and the tangent about designing mental systems. In case you weren't paying attention: materialism cannot account for non-locality. Hidden variables have been ruled out. So the spooky action at a distance must be not the product of material but a relationship between material. This relationship cannot be reduced to material. Materialism doesn't correspond with qm. Qm ( from my reading here) suggests that reality is the our observation of statistical probabilities, these statistical probabilities cannot be reduced to material either. The tangent about computer mimicking mental systems was very interesting, but unimportant to the "materialism is the best" crusade. But essentially you said we can do this, and he said no we can't. After reviewing all of the sources, it seems as though we can create aspects that are similar to mental systems, but not actually like them. it was very much funny. He was arguing a technicality, you were generalizing. I assumed you both understood the other but were digging your feet in.

Don't misunderstand, I enjoy reading your posts. And had you taken up physicalism in the beginning, I do not think you would be in the situation you are. You are obviously intelligent, and I would love watching you sink one of legions battleships sometimes as well. But he is hard to goad into topics that don't revolve around areas of his studies and research. But I am sure you will, or perhaps have in some thread I have not yet read.

I get the impression that somehow you have taken issue with my comment. I apologize, I thought you might be the sort that doesn't mind a jest. I meant no offense, other than to point out that he has not stated an opinion about his beliefs. Perhaps he is formulating them still. He certainly did not put himself out there for challenge as you have done. Is it possible that you could simply change materialism to physicalism and maintain the entirety of your argument? Your point, unless I am mistaken was to attack the supernatural and such not idealism. So, wouldn't physicalism work just as well?

Curious George said:

Lol, I am a fan boy of virtually every poster on rf, including you. I love watching people's writing styles and watching them change over time. Legion and a couple others (who do not post here anymore) are capable and versed in propositional logic (as well as other logics) I do rely on them to help me there sometimes. But I love watching their battleships get sunk just as well. I think you have done a wonderful job in trying to defend.

But these holes: non-locality, qm understanding of particles, and the tangent about designing mental systems. In case you weren't paying attention: materialism cannot account for non-locality. Hidden variables have been ruled out. So the spooky action at a distance must be not the product of material but a relationship between material. This relationship cannot be reduced to material. Materialism doesn't correspond with qm. Qm ( from my reading here) suggests that reality is the our observation of statistical probabilities, these statistical probabilities cannot be reduced to material either. The tangent about computer mimicking mental systems was very interesting, but unimportant to the "materialism is the best" crusade. But essentially you said we can do this, and he said no we can't. After reviewing all of the sources, it seems as though we can create aspects that are similar to mental systems, but not actually like them. it was very much funny. He was arguing a technicality, you were generalizing. I assumed you both understood the other but were digging your feet in.

Don't misunderstand, I enjoy reading your posts. And had you taken up physicalism in the beginning, I do not think you would be in the situation you are. You are obviously intelligent, and I would love watching you sink one of legions battleships sometimes as well. But he is hard to goad into topics that don't revolve around areas of his studies and research. But I am sure you will, or perhaps have in some thread I have not yet read.

I get the impression that somehow you have taken issue with my comment. I apologize, I thought you might be the sort that doesn't mind a jest. I meant no offense, other than to point out that he has not stated an opinion about his beliefs. Perhaps he is formulating them still. He certainly did not put himself out there for challenge as you have done. Is it possible that you could simply change materialism to physicalism and maintain the entirety of your argument? Your point, unless I am mistaken was to attack the supernatural and such not idealism. So, wouldn't physicalism work just as well?

Click to expand...

Dont worry Im not offended or upset at all and im sorry if I gave that impression. Look at my profile picture to confirm that lol.

But the thing about materialism and QM is that QM is, in fact, inherently consistent with materialism because QM fundamentally describes mathematical relationships, or rather laws which material obeys as you imply. The definition of materialism that I first submitted was that all observable phenomena in the universe is explained by material and the corresponding laws of physics that material abides by. So if material follows mathematical rules, which represent physical laws, then it is consistent with my statement that materialism rejects a supernatural explanation. Material essentially follows a mathematical relationship that does not depend on any supernatural occurances; it just depends on an incredibly difficult to understand property of waves that allow for such an incomprehensible phenomena to occur. But i dont think we need to postulate that God or something beyond laws and mathematics and physics that is handling this for us. For some reason there is this somewhat bizarre idea permeating the thread that materialism is associated with classical physics, which i dont think could be more wrong. There's also the idea that materialism rejects the statistical distributions that material operates by, which is wrong again because statistics are just laws that material follows according to my definition. In addition, there have been some assertions that materialism requires determinism which isnt true since the laws of QM rely on randomness.

A good example of the above is where Legion brought up the fact that particles are not really material as traditionally viewed due to the fact that sub atomic particles consist of fields described by mathematical entities. My response to this was that matter, used the definition of materialism, simply updates to account for that fact. Material then just becomes that which is composed of subatomic particles, and therefore by extension the mathematical entities that describe the fields which make up the subatomic particles. So i basically submit that the definitions used by materialism have to update in response to development in physics. This works because matter hasnt ever really changed, just our deeper understanding of it has, which is sensible. I dont think materialism had to adhere to the position that subatomic particles couldnt be composed of something else.

Perhaps you would suggest that what i am suggesting in fact is not materialism but something else? If its something else then whats the difference between my definition and what materialism actually is? I thought i had the correct understanding of it but it seems that many educated and competent people are disagreeing with me. I fail to see a substantial difference between physical-ism, for instance, and materialism.

And yeah physicalism would work i suppose, I guess I am less concerned with the labeling and more concerned with the content that i established in the op. Materialism seemed like an okay label for it.

But i recognize that Legion did not state an opinion about his belief which is why I have been pressuring him to provide an alternative explanation for reality that maybe you might also have suggestions for. Because i've come up with two essentially and i dont know if this is a false dilemma--either everything obeys laws or there are supernatural components to the universe.

serp777 said:

So wait im curious. Do you believe that there are things which are explained by the supernatural?

Because either you think everything follows some physical law or you have to think that our universe is a blend of things which do and dont follow physical laws. Its not a false dilemma because there's no logical in between except to say agnosticism, which i would admit would be a fair position.

Click to expand...

It is in the definition of choosing, also sometimes denoted as randomness or true randomness, that some event can turn out several different ways. Einstein complained about the electron that it appears to be chosen in some instances. For example the position of an electron around an atom is chosen. This made him sad and not want to have become a scientist, because he appreciated a forced order in the universe more, like if the electron had a predictable orbit around the atom similar to a planet going round a sun. When you look for the electron around an atom, then every time you look, there is some probability distribution where it is likely to turn up, but there is no way to tell where within this probability distribution it will end up one moment to the next. (although some believe they have found a little predictability in it, but not 100 percent predictability).

The supernatural comes in view when you start to ask the question, why did the electron turn up here in stead of there, what is it that made the event turn out the way it did?

To answer this question, we cannot resort to hypothesizing mechanisms forcing the result in explanation, because as we have seen, the result is not arrived at in a forced way, but in a free way. In stead one can only answer such questions by choosing the answer. Just as the electron could turn out 1 of several different ways, now you must yourself turn out 1 of several different ways in answering the question of what it is that made the electron turn out the way it did.

For example you might choose it is "love" that made the event turn out the way it did, or "hate", or "emptiness". Here the logical validity doesn't actually depend on the content of the answer, it only depends on how the answer is arrived at. There must be more than 1 answer available, any of which can be chosen, then the answer is valid. This means that the only incorrect answer is a forced answer. To provide a forced answer is really just hypothesising that the electron was forced to end up in the position where it did, which is false because the electron freely could have turned up anywhere within the positions described by the probability distribution.

So that is how subjectivity works, it is to choose about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion. Choose about what it was that made the electron turn out the way it did in freedom. Provide an answer by expression of emotion, which occurs with free will, thus choosing the answer.

Einstein Defiant: Genius Versus Genius in the Quantum Revolution | The National Academies Press
"I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to radiation should choose of its own free will, not only its moment to jump off, but also its direction. In that case, I would rather be a cobbler, or even an employee in a gaming house, than a physicist." -Albert Einstein"

serp777 said:

No, im utilizing empiricism in materialism to reduce the number of assumptions that it inherently needs to make. I fail to see an issue with that. Materialism should depend on empirical data for a good amount of its arguments and assertions. Now of course its not as rigorous as science. Its a weaker version of science but with more scope and more assertions.

Click to expand...

I understand how you are reaching your conclusion. I am just pointing of that this is inductive reasoning since it is making a universal statement based on a limited amount of observations. This does not mean the argument is invalid just that it is limited by inductive reasoning so this limit should be acknowledged.

serp777 said:

The first line says that physicalism is sometimes known as materialism. Maybe im not using the correct position but materialism as ive defined and explained it is a pretty logical definition. People seem to be arguing about the semantics of materialism and whether im correctly using it but i dont think that matters to much. So your first definition is completely flaccid. You have to include that everything is material and EXPLAINABLE by the laws in which material interacts. Just matter by itself without physics laws wouldnt do anything--in fact mass itself couldnt exist without physical laws

Click to expand...

I suppose I was focusing on semantic issues. It is just that materialism/physicalism as a philosophical thesis doesn't really offer explanations as far as I can tell. I made the point earlier that almost nothing would change if we were to realise that physicalism was dead wrong tomorrow.

serp777 said:

I think everything in the universe can be explained by material and the fundamental laws they follow. Seems like a pretty good definition of materialism--using the logic of materialism you can think of ways in which every observable phenomena could be explained by material, so therefore no supernatural explanation is not necessary. The reason why this is a good default assumption that is likely is because so far so much has been explained by the laws of physics and material, and in fact nothing has been demonstrated to require a supernatural explanation. You may claim this as a false dilemma but either everything is explained by material and the laws of physics or it requires a supernatural explanation, that is an explanation that does not follow logic or physical laws. You'd be hard pressed to take a middle ground.

Materialism can say much more than you're suggesting though.

Click to expand...

I also reject supernaturalism but for me that doesn't make materialism any more meaningful. Science does all the explaining I need and in my experience scientists don't care about the number and quality of substances in the world.

Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:

It is in the definition of choosing, also sometimes denoted as randomness or true randomness, that some event can turn out several different ways. Einstein complained about the electron that it appears to be chosen in some instances. For example the position of an electron around an atom is chosen. This made him sad and not want to have become a scientist, because he appreciated a forced order in the universe more, like if the electron had a predictable orbit around the atom similar to a planet going round a sun. When you look for the electron around an atom, then every time you look, there is some probability distribution where it is likely to turn up, but there is no way to tell where within this probability distribution it will end up one moment to the next. (although some believe they have found a little predictability in it, but not 100 percent predictability).

The supernatural comes in view when you start to ask the question, why did the electron turn up here in stead of there, what is it that made the event turn out the way it did?

To answer this question, we cannot resort to hypothesizing mechanisms forcing the result in explanation, because as we have seen, the result is not arrived at in a forced way, but in a free way. In stead one can only answer such questions by choosing the answer. Just as the electron could turn out 1 of several different ways, now you must yourself turn out 1 of several different ways in answering the question of what it is that made the electron turn out the way it did.

For example you might choose it is "love" that made the event turn out the way it did, or "hate", or "emptiness". Here the logical validity doesn't actually depend on the content of the answer, it only depends on how the answer is arrived at. There must be more than 1 answer available, any of which can be chosen, then the answer is valid. This means that the only incorrect answer is a forced answer. To provide a forced answer is really just hypothesising that the electron was forced to end up in the position where it did, which is false because the electron freely could have turned up anywhere within the positions described by the probability distribution.

So that is how subjectivity works, it is to choose about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion. Choose about what it was that made the electron turn out the way it did in freedom. Provide an answer by expression of emotion, which occurs with free will, thus choosing the answer.

Einstein Defiant: Genius Versus Genius in the Quantum Revolution | The National Academies Press
"I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to radiation should choose of its own free will, not only its moment to jump off, but also its direction. In that case, I would rather be a cobbler, or even an employee in a gaming house, than a physicist." -Albert Einstein"

Click to expand...

Einstein was noted to frequently use metaphor to emphasize his point. He said stuff like God does not play dice. Now does this mean he was saying that Quantum physics would disprove God and the supernatural? No, of course not, that was just a metaphor. Similarly, he's not saying that an electron actually has free will or makes a decision, only that he dislikes the concept of probability and how things choose one probability versus another. Now there is a possible theory that, in fact, all possibilities occur in the fifth dimension as particles explore every possibility. Now thats just speculative but could solve the entire problem. We exist because of the anthropomorphic principle and it solves the mystery of probability realization. I think this explanation is far more likely than positing the supernatural to explain relatively menial events.

And what do you think is happening? God moves down to the world of the quantum and tells electrons what do when struck by radiation? No, come on, if there was a God he would be able to design a universe in which physical laws would handle all aspects of reality without his intervention--he would have the power and intelligence to do that. Furthermore the electrons are described by the laws of probability that are still explained by a law in essence, just not a classical laws. Materialism does not hinge on classical, Newtonian depictions of physics.

Finally an electron doesnt have the capacity to experience those subjective things. To say that love or hate determines which probability is realized makes no sense. Why would emotion be required for an electron to make a decision, which is already unlikely? Like I said there are other more possibilities too than electrons actually having freewill and making conscious decisions. Your idea postulate a vast complexity where electrons somehow make decisions based on emotion. You sound like a deepak chopra analogue, where the brain is a superposition of possibility and depends on quantum non locality or that subjectivity is the basis for QM, etc.

Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:

It is in the definition of choosing, also sometimes denoted as randomness or true randomness, that some event can turn out several different ways. Einstein complained about the electron that it appears to be chosen in some instances. For example the position of an electron around an atom is chosen. This made him sad and not want to have become a scientist, because he appreciated a forced order in the universe more, like if the electron had a predictable orbit around the atom similar to a planet going round a sun. When you look for the electron around an atom, then every time you look, there is some probability distribution where it is likely to turn up, but there is no way to tell where within this probability distribution it will end up one moment to the next. (although some believe they have found a little predictability in it, but not 100 percent predictability).

The supernatural comes in view when you start to ask the question, why did the electron turn up here in stead of there, what is it that made the event turn out the way it did?

To answer this question, we cannot resort to hypothesizing mechanisms forcing the result in explanation, because as we have seen, the result is not arrived at in a forced way, but in a free way. In stead one can only answer such questions by choosing the answer. Just as the electron could turn out 1 of several different ways, now you must yourself turn out 1 of several different ways in answering the question of what it is that made the electron turn out the way it did.

For example you might choose it is "love" that made the event turn out the way it did, or "hate", or "emptiness". Here the logical validity doesn't actually depend on the content of the answer, it only depends on how the answer is arrived at. There must be more than 1 answer available, any of which can be chosen, then the answer is valid. This means that the only incorrect answer is a forced answer. To provide a forced answer is really just hypothesising that the electron was forced to end up in the position where it did, which is false because the electron freely could have turned up anywhere within the positions described by the probability distribution.

So that is how subjectivity works, it is to choose about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion. Choose about what it was that made the electron turn out the way it did in freedom. Provide an answer by expression of emotion, which occurs with free will, thus choosing the answer.

Einstein Defiant: Genius Versus Genius in the Quantum Revolution | The National Academies Press
"I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to radiation should choose of its own free will, not only its moment to jump off, but also its direction. In that case, I would rather be a cobbler, or even an employee in a gaming house, than a physicist." -Albert Einstein"

Click to expand...

You obviously don't believe in freedom or "choosing".